What We Know About The Impact Of Primary Debates

The first Democratic primary debate is almost here. We’ve hearda lotabout the rules for who makes the stage, but will these debates actually affect how Democratic primary voters make their decision who to vote for, or how they evaluate the candidates?

Political science tends to be skeptical of general election debates.
The people who are most likely to tune into debates tend to be highly informed and already engaged in politics
— and thus already likely to have formed an opinion. This has become
especially true in recent years as partisanship has grown stronger.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that debates can still affect voters’
impressions of candidates, especially in primaries. It’s all about the
context in which a debate is taking place. And we happen to be at a
point in the 2020 cycle when debates tend to be most effective.

Here’s a look at what political science has told us about debates over the years and what that could mean for 2020.

Debates help voters evaluate candidates, and can change minds — under the right circumstances

A debate’s main purpose is to help voters decide which candidate they
want to support. And there is evidence that primary debates can change people’s minds. Research by University of Missouri communication professors Mitchell McKinney and Benjamin Warner found that nearly 60 percent of study participants experienced a shift in their candidate choices after watching a debate.

But the circumstances matter. First, debates are more important in
primaries, as voters can’t rely on their party identification in
selecting a candidate. While vote choices in general elections are
mostly shaped by partisanship — and thus debates have a limited effect —
primary voters are looking for other differences, such as whether
candidates are likable, electable or compatible with them on issues.
Studies show that debates affect these perceptions.

Generally, the academic research also agrees
that debates have the most impact when voters have relatively little
information about the candidates and it’s still early in the election
cycle (that is, where we are now).

Debates are also most useful when the field is crowded (again, like now) because they can help lesser-known candidates appear electable. One study from the 1996 Republican primary
found, for example, that watching the primary debates had a substantial
effect on candidates’ perceived viability. In that study, debate
viewers rated businessman Steve Forbes’s
chances of winning the nomination and beating Bill Clinton in the
general election more highly after the debate. By contrast, the debate
hurt former Education Secretary Lamar Alexander’s perceived electability.1

But those potential effects are limited — particularly by the rules and structure of the debate. A study of the 2012 Republican primary debates
noted that candidates who were already doing well in early polls were
afforded more speaking time; so, depending on the format, debates might
not actually do that much to boost minor candidates.

How debates are covered in the media also matters

Debates don’t just affect those who watch them; they can also
influence the political environment by how they are covered in the
media. Candidates don’t have the final say on how their debate
performances are portrayed, but that portrayal matters: not everyone
will watch the debate, but there’s evidence that voters are responsive
to how the media reports on the candidates’ performances. For instance, a study from the 2004 general election
found that media coverage immediately following the 2004
general-election debates favored then-President George W. Bush over
then-Sen. John Kerry, and that that coverage “persuaded potential voters
to alter their attitudes regarding the competing candidates.” Voters
were more likely to have a favorable opinion of Bush after the
post-debate spin and analysis.

Which naturally raises a question: How do news media outlets decide
who “won” a debate, or how to portray what happened? Well, that’s not
really clear. But it’s not exactly a perfect reflection of what the
candidates say. Researchers found that news coverage
of both the Republican and Democratic primary debates in 2000 focused
more on sniping between the candidates than on the candidates’
positions.2 Instead of engaging with the candidates’ statements on issues such as homeland security or healthcare, news analyses focused on campaign strategy and election chances.

Additionally, some candidates may receive a more favorable portrayal
based on factors outside their control. In the 2020 cycle, the media has
already faced criticism for portraying male candidates differently from female candidates, and for emphasizing ill-defined characteristics such as likability over policy ideas.

What this means for 2020

As we’ve discussed, primary debates are a way for voters to evaluate
candidates — with, that is, the media also playing a big role in how
they are perceived. Something to watch in the 2020 Democratic primary
debates is whether candidates hovering around 1 percent in the polls
will be able to garner more support, or if the field will winnow as
momentum builds around a few front-runners.

How minor candidates do is particularly relevant for 2020 because the field is so crowded. While most of the strongest candidates — based on their current polling averages
— will be in Thursday’s debate, the first night will feature Sen.
Elizabeth Warren alongside a few candidates who have struggled to hit
more than 2 percent in the polls and six more who barely cracked 1
percent. The research
is inconclusive as to whether being the front-runner is a built-in
advantage in a debate. It’s possible that being the polling leader — at
least, on that night’s debate stage — may give Warren an advantage, such as by earning her additional speaking time. Or, a more level playing field might be an opportunity for someone like Beto O’Rourke or Amy Klobuchar to have a breakout moment.

The other 2020-relevant lesson from the research: A breakout moment
is more likely to happen if the news media agrees that it happened. (If a
tree falls in the forest … .) If Kamala Harris or Warren — who have
both hovered around third place
in the polls — were to be crowned the “winner” of a primary debate, it
could shake up the race and threaten Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders’s
polling leads. If the post-debate media narrative is more muddled, we’re
less likely to see a big shift in the race.

Finally, beyond the horse-race, the debates might serve simply to add
to the interest in the presidential primary, drawing voters into the
process — as research has shown debates can. If the high turnout in the 2018 midterms
is any indicator, political engagement is high right now. It’s also
possible that the debates will help to focus the discussion,
highlighting critical differences in beliefs, policies and approaches among candidates.

Or, we may just end up talking about Pete Buttigieg answering a question in Norwegian. Stay tuned.

Julia Azari is an associate professor of political science at Marquette University. Her research interests include the American presidency, political parties and political rhetoric. She is the author of “Delivering the People’s Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate.” @julia_azari